[Goose]

If his decision is based on the risk of getting injured while performing his duties as a running back, and one accepts that there is such a risk, his not playing does not make that risk disappear, it simply transfers that risk to whomever now has to perform those duties.  Thus, CMAC is saying that, while he is not willing to assume that risk, he is fine with [presumably] Love now taking it on for all of those additional plays that Love will have to run in CMAC's absence.    In fact, with CMAC gone, the injury risk for Love probably increases, since he will presumably have to carry the ball more than he would have with CMAC playing, not only increasing the number of opportunities for injury, but also increasing the tiredness/wear and tear factor that could contribute to the severity of any injury. So there is that impact on the individual/teammate level.  Furthermore, on the team level, if an injury were to occur, rather than having CMAC, Love, and Scarlett available, the team now only has Love and Scarlett available -- on its face, that is a less favorable position to be in.

It is true that no CMac means more carries for Love and Scarlett, at least probably. More carries brings greater risk, that is for sure. I think both players would say that they consider getting the carries with the associated risk of injury to be superior to sitting on the bench. So it is probably more favorable to them. The TEAM may be more at risk, because it has one less good, ready, running back. That could matter, and we will see. However, they will be in that position next year too, baring a Freshman being ready to play. So if you want to condemn CMac on that basis, I would say you must not be very happy about him doing the same all next year. To me, that is a rational position. I just have trouble separating the Sun Bowl from all next year. If all next year is ok, why is this game different? 

And, looking at the longer term horizon, if the injury risk that he is presumably seeking to avoid is one that has hypothetical adverse career implications -- say, inability to play next season -- he is now transferring that risk to Love and to the team.  That is the flip side of the "this actually helps the team because it gives them a chance to preapre for next year" argument.  If you assume CMAC's decision is rational and justified because the risk of injury is real, how can you turn around and then assume that there is no risk [or even a lesser risk] of injury for the person replacing CMAC?

I don't assume that. I agree it increases the risk to the other backs. This is a disadvantage to the team, no question. But I see it as a small one, relatively speaking. CMac has one chance at the draft. The other backs have six months to heal and more seasons to play. They choose to accept that risk by playing. CMac chooses not to by not playing. He is in a special situation that makes his current health more important than normal. That may make his choice reasonable.

  Whatever play he would have been injured on will now result in injury to the person replacing him on that play, unless the game plan is changed such that the play never happens. 

Of course, if the game plan is altered so that this hypothetical play never occurs, then it is likely that the team's chances will be adversely impacted, because you are now designing/running an offense that is compensating for not having its best player.

This is real hypothetical, but I don't necessarily agree. Changing the game plan from "All CMac all the Time"  could in fact IMPROVE the teams chances. Many have argued that Stanford has become too one-dimensional. When you have the best all purpose player in the nation, you may do that. However, it can put you in a situation that you have no plan b. Last year, our "plan b" was pretty much run Hogan (Washington State). It worked fairly well. This year, we seemed to lack an alternative (for many reasons far too controversial for this thread!). Whatever the case, we need to figure out our plan for next year, because we don't have CMac. If we (OK, the coaches and the team) do a good job of this, we may be a better team sooner than later. If we don't, then we will be negatively impacted. How much, we shall see. I think this could make the Sun Bowl much more interesting.

Thus, the negative effects on his teammates [or, at least, some of them] and the team as a whole

Yes, I agree, there are some negatives and some positives. I tend to think the negatives are not as big as you seem to believe they are, but that makes the discussion interesting.

[Goose]

If his decision is based on the risk of getting injured while performing his duties as a running back, and one accepts that there is such a risk, his not playing does not make that risk disappear, it simply transfers that risk to whomever now has to perform those duties.  Thus, CMAC is saying that, while he is not willing to assume that risk, he is fine with [presumably] Love now taking it on for all of those additional plays that Love will have to run in CMAC's absence.    In fact, with CMAC gone, the injury risk for Love probably increases, since he will presumably have to carry the ball more than he would have with CMAC playing, not only increasing the number of opportunities for injury, but also increasing the tiredness/wear and tear factor that could contribute to the severity of any injury. So there is that impact on the individual/teammate level.  Furthermore, on the team level, if an injury were to occur, rather than having CMAC, Love, and Scarlett available, the team now only has Love and Scarlett available -- on its face, that is a less favorable position to be in.

It is true that no CMac means more carries for Love and Scarlett, at least probably. More carries brings greater risk, that is for sure. I think both players would say that they consider getting the carries with the associated risk of injury to be superior to sitting on the bench. So it is probably more favorable to them. The TEAM may be more at risk, because it has one less good, ready, running back. That could matter, and we will see. However, they will be in that position next year too, baring a Freshman being ready to play. So if you want to condemn CMac on that basis, I would say you must not be very happy about him doing the same all next year. To me, that is a rational position. I just have trouble separating the Sun Bowl from all next year. If all next year is ok, why is this game different? 

And, looking at the longer term horizon, if the injury risk that he is presumably seeking to avoid is one that has hypothetical adverse career implications -- say, inability to play next season -- he is now transferring that risk to Love and to the team.  That is the flip side of the "this actually helps the team because it gives them a chance to preapre for next year" argument.  If you assume CMAC's decision is rational and justified because the risk of injury is real, how can you turn around and then assume that there is no risk [or even a lesser risk] of injury for the person replacing CMAC?

I don't assume that. I agree it increases the risk to the other backs. This is a disadvantage to the team, no question. But I see it as a small one, relatively speaking. CMac has one chance at the draft. The other backs have six months to heal and more seasons to play. They choose to accept that risk by playing. CMac chooses not to by not playing. He is in a special situation that makes his current health more important than normal. That may make his choice reasonable.

  Whatever play he would have been injured on will now result in injury to the person replacing him on that play, unless the game plan is changed such that the play never happens. 

Of course, if the game plan is altered so that this hypothetical play never occurs, then it is likely that the team's chances will be adversely impacted, because you are now designing/running an offense that is compensating for not having its best player.

This is real hypothetical, but I don't necessarily agree. Changing the game plan from "All CMac all the Time"  could in fact IMPROVE the teams chances. Many have argued that Stanford has become too one-dimensional. When you have the best all purpose player in the nation, you may do that. However, it can put you in a situation that you have no plan b. Last year, our "plan b" was pretty much run Hogan (Washington State). It worked fairly well. This year, we seemed to lack an alternative (for many reasons far too controversial for this thread!). Whatever the case, we need to figure out our plan for next year, because we don't have CMac. If we (OK, the coaches and the team) do a good job of this, we may be a better team sooner than later. If we don't, then we will be negatively impacted. How much, we shall see. I think this could make the Sun Bowl much more interesting.

Thus, the negative effects on his teammates [or, at least, some of them] and the team as a whole

Yes, I agree, there are some negatives and some positives. I tend to think the negatives are not as big as you seem to believe they are, but that makes the discussion interesting.